Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements

Establishing an accurate primary invasive breast cancer size is crucial for patient management. Although ultrasonographic measurement is reported to correlate reliably with the gold standard pathology measurement, few authors have examined the influence of histologic subtype on ultrasound measurement. The common subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma, ductal and lobular, have different growth patterns, which may influence the ability of ultrasound to predict pathologic size. For this analysis, ultrasound and pathology reports were retrospectively reviewed for 204 women with 210 invasive breast cancers, including 129 ductal, 41 lobular, and 40 mixed pattern ductal and lobular carcinomas. For each tumor, the largest pathology and ultrasound dimensions were compared using Pearson's correlations, linear regression, paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests, stratified by histologic subtype. The Hodges–Lehmann approach was used to obtain 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median difference of the sizes. Ultrasonography consistently underestimated pathologic tumor size; the overall median difference was 3.5 mm (CI: 2.5–4.0 mm) and for subtypes: 2.5 mm (CI: 1.5–3.5 mm) for ductal pattern; 3.0 mm (CI: 1.5–4.5 mm) for mixed pattern; and in contrast, 7.5 mm (CI: 5.0–13.5 mm) for lobular pattern tumors. Significant correlations of similar magnitude, were observed between size measurements for ductal, lobular, and mixed subtypes (r=0.816, 0.811 and 0.672, respectively; all P<0.001); however, linear regression models differed between subtypes. Although practical and widely available, ultrasonography tends to underestimate pathologic tumor size. The size difference may be large for lobular carcinomas, potentially influencing stage; differences are less pronounced for ductal and mixed subtypes. Pathologic tumor size can be estimated from the ultrasonographic measurement, particularly if the histologic tumor subtype is known. The results of this study underscore the continued benefit of pretreatment tumor histology.

[1]  U. Chetty,et al.  Ultrasonography as a method of measuring breast tumour size and monitoring response to primary systemic treatment , 1994, The British journal of surgery.

[2]  B. Fornage,et al.  Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size , 1987, Cancer.

[3]  S E Harms,et al.  MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. , 1993, Radiology.

[4]  C. Finlayson,et al.  Ultrasound can estimate the pathologic size of infiltrating ductal carcinoma. , 2000, Archives of surgery.

[5]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  Relative value of physical examination, mammography, and breast sonography in evaluating the size of the primary tumor and regional lymph node metastases in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. , 1997, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[6]  P. Skaane,et al.  Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma , 1999, Acta radiologica.

[7]  W. Sauerbrei,et al.  Preoperative staging of breast cancer by palpation, mammography and high‐resolution ultrasound , 1993, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[8]  J O Barentsz,et al.  Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. , 1995, Radiology.

[9]  J M Pruneda,et al.  MR imaging in the management before surgery of lobular carcinoma of the breast: correlation with pathology. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Melinda J. Staiger,et al.  Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography , 2005, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[11]  W. Yang,et al.  Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer. , 1997, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[12]  J. Pain,et al.  Assessment of breast cancer size: a comparison of methods. , 1992, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[13]  H Mumtaz,et al.  Staging of symptomatic primary breast cancer with MR imaging. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  C. Balch,et al.  AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed , 2002 .

[15]  T. Hieken,et al.  Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. , 2001, American journal of surgery.